As the free software and free culture movements have sat quietly by,
DRM is now well on its way to becoming the norm in the electronic book
publishing industry.

The free culture movement has failed to communicate the reality of
DRM and, as a result, millions of people are buying books that they
won't be able to read when they switch to a different model of ebook
reader in the future. They are buying books that will become
inaccessible when the DRM system that supports them is shut down -- as
we've already seen with music from companies including Wal*Mart,
Yahoo, and Microsoft. They are buying books that require that
readers use proprietary tools that lock them out from doing basic
things that have always been the right of a book owner.

Some anti-DRM advocates are, indirectly, part of this problem as they
buy these books and turn to shadymethods of stripping the
DRM. Buying DRMed books is voting with your wallet for a system that
criminalizes those that insist on living in freedom and will screw us
all in the long run when DRM is the only choice we are offered and
removing the DRM is difficult, unsafe, and illegal.

Buying non-DRMed e-books is a more freedom-friendly alternative for
those that, like me, are excited about not lugging kilograms of paper
around our cities and the world. We can do this at "non-mainstream"
publishers like Smashwords who explicitly reject DRM. Of course,
the big ebook sellers like Amazon, and Barnes and Nobel, and Google
all offer non-DRMed books. But none of the major ebook retailers
explicitly reveal the DRM status of locked down books before
purchase.

It's hard to support non-DRM alternatives when we can't recognize
them. It's hard to tell people to not buy DRM ebooks if we can't even
tell them apart. Getting this message through to book buyers -- and
perhaps even to ebook retailers -- seems like a critical first step.

I roll my eyes a little when I think that Unhappy Birthday is the
document I have written that has been read by the most people. The
page -- basically a website encouraging people to rat on their friends
for copyright violation for singing Happy Birthday in public -- has
received millions of page views and has generated tons of its own
media (including a rather memorable interview of CBC's WireTap). At
the bottom of the page I am listed, by name and email, as the
"copyrighteous spokesman" for the initiative.

And since the page has been online, I have received hate mail about
it. Constantly.

Since the email only goes to me, I thought it might be fun to share
some of these publicly. All these messages are quoted verbatim but I
have not included the senders' names. Be warned: the language is often
salty.

This email is years old now but it is probably still my favorite:

Atrocity and strife run rampant in this world.

Babies are abandoned in dumpsters. Teachers molest students.
Impoverished Indonesians make sneakers for pennies while the spoiled
jackhole in the 30-second commercial makes millions for sinking a
three-pointer and smirking at the camera. Forms of religion are
interpreted as to compel people to strap explosives to their chest
and board buses full of innocents. Boss Tweeds embezzle and get
severance pay while John Q. Workingman gets put out on the street
when the corporation goes belly up.

Out of all these indignities and countless others I haven't the time
to mention, why do you make it your personal crusade to assist in
the flagrant persecution of family restaurants for partaking in the
time-honored tradition of singing "Happy Birthday"? God forbid these
foul brigands bend copyright law in order to bring a smile to
somebody's face.

Food for thought...without the accompanying song.

Many others strike a defiant, if less poetic, tone:

Good luck! There are millions of us who refuse to accept the
ridiculous "copyright" on Happy Birthday. If Time Warner were an
ethical company rather than a greedy megacorp they would do
something truly special and release it into the public domain.

There are some things in this world more important than money.

Quite a few people notice that my last name is Hill and suspect that I
must be related to the Hill sisters who originally penned the
song. I'm not, to my knowledge, although since Time Warner bought the
rights, it's not clear it would matter:

I am writing to just let you know how disappointed I am that a large
corporation and others (like the HILL family) are making $2 million
plus for a song that was created over 100 years ago with noone
knowing who created the lyrics! None of us at our place of
employment could believe this and we certainly won't encourage
people to send money to ASCAP. It is a shame that ASCAP license
fees aren't used to pay more to up-and-coming artists who I'm sure
need this money alot more than Time Warner.

We all plan to sing Happy Birthday MORE now in public places and if
anyone asks if it is copyrighted we will say "of course not". Maybe
this way the song will not die out completely as more and more other
"birthday" songs are being sung. It would also be nice if your
website cited whose opinion is writing the piece and your obvious
conflict of interest.

Or another:

Is it a coincidence that your last name is the same as the last name
of the authors of the song "Happy Birthday?" You seem to have a
personal monetary motive for your work with the "grassroots project"
you call Unhappy Birthday, and if you do not, your concern is
misplaced all the same. Whom do you imagine your campaign serves?
And do you realize whom it harms?

I do not question the illegality of performing the copyrighted song
publicly. And you are correct that most of the public is not even
aware that the song is under copyright. I think the harm done to
Time Warner and its associates by such public performances is far
outweighed by the joy created when the much-loved happy tune is
shared.

I urge you to ask yourself why you think the immortal Hill sisters
wrote the song in the first place. It was not to put more money
Time Warner's pocket. It was, I would argue, for the sake of the
song itself and the happiness it brings when performed (publicly or
otherwise). Please consider siding with the children and the
artists; let the lawsuits alone.

Some people suspect the site may be satire, but include insults and
and attacks just in case it isn't:

I'm trying to figure out if your Unhappy Birthday site is meant to
be in jest. If so Rofl, and congrats on a hilarious site. If
you're actually serious, then fuck you Nazi cunts and your corporate
butt buddies. Thank you for your time.

Or these two alternatives (each were separate emails):

If this is a joke then it's rather funny. However if this website is
serious then you're a fucking idiot. Get a life!!!!

if it is a form of protest, then THANK YOU! if it is not, then
screw you all!

One memorable piece of mail was from someone who knew of me from my
activities in the free software and free culture communities and had a
hard time reconciling my work there with the high protectionist
website:

I was quiet surprised to see your name and email address at the
bottom of the home page of the site Unhappy Birthday. The site
claims that you are their spokesman.

Is this correct? I do not understand... You have all this Open
Source/ Free Software background and then this site that defends one
of the most controversial copyright issues???

Do you really mean this? Do you want to help Time Warner?

I've also received probably half a dozen mails that offer some sort of
support! For example, this person liked the website -- and even wanted
to buy one of our t-shirts -- but objected to our logo:

I was going to buy one of your products from your Unhappy Birthday
Shop at CafePress but there's a problem.

I hate emblems that uses human skulls in them.

Being a member of ASCAP I really do support your cause but I can't
buy a product that I would never wear.

And many people are simply confused asking something like this one:

So I saw the unhappy birthday site and I'm just a little
confused. Is this a joke or a serious thing?

I usually reply and explain that I have tried to ensure that the site
describes the legal situation around Happy Birthday honestly and
correctly.

That said, the vast majority of messages I receive are unequivocal.
Like this email that I received last week addressed to "you anti-free
speech fascists":

Half an hour later, the author followed up with a English version of
the same message, set to the tune of happy birthday.

You might think that getting insulted and flipped off by confused
people on the Internet might get me down. It doesn't! I made Unhappy
Birthday because I thought that the fact that something as important
to our culture as Happy Birthday could be owned was
outrageous. Every piece of hate mail means that somebody else --
almost always somebody who isn't a "copyfighter" or a free culture
geek -- is now upset about the current state of copyright too.

Sure, Unhappy Birthday makes me a tiny bit sad about people's ability
to recognize satire. But it makes me really happy about people's
ability to get very annoyed at what they think is the outrageous
control of our culture through copyright. When more people are as mad
as the the people I've quoted above, we will be able to change
copyright into something less outrageous to all of us.

There is tons of advice on the Internet (e.g., on the academic
blogsIread) for prospective doctoral students. I am very
happy with my own graduate school choices but I feel that I basically
got lucky. Few people are saying the two things I really wish someone
had told me before I made the decision to get a PhD:

Most people getting doctorates would probably be better off doing
something else.

Evaluating potentially programs can basically done by looking at and
talking with a program's recent graduates.

Most People Getting Doctorates Probably Shouldn't

In most fields, the only thing you need a PhD for is to become a
professor -- and even this requirement can be flexible. You can have
almost any job in any company or non-profit without a PhD. You can
teach without a PhD. You can write books without a PhD. You can do
research and work in thinktanks without a PhD. You don't even always
need a PhD to grant PhDs to other people: two of my advisors at the
Media Lab supervised PhD work but did not have doctorates themselves!
Becoming a tenured professor is more difficult without a doctorate,
but it is not impossible. There are grants and jobs outside of
universities that require doctorates, but not nearly as many as most
people applying for PhDs programs think.

Getting a doctorate can even hurt: If you want to work in a company or
non-profit, you are usually better off with 4-6 years of experience
doing the kind of work you want to do than with the doctorate and the
less relevant experience of getting one. Starting salaries for people
with doctorates are often higher than for people with masters
degrees. But salaries for people with masters degrees and 5 years of
experience are even higher -- and that's before you take into account
the opportunity costs of working for relatively low graduate student
wages for half a decade.

PhD take an enormous amount of time and, in most programs, you spend a
huge amount of this time doing academic busy work, teaching, applying
for grants or fellowships, and writing academic papers that very
people read. These are skills you'll need to be a successful
professor. They are useful skills for other jobs too, but not as
useful as the experience of actually doing those other jobs for the
time it takes to get the degree.

Evaluating Graduate Programs

If you are still convinced you need a doctorate, or any graduate
degree for that matter, you will need to pick a program. Plenty of
people will offer advice on how to pick the right program and trying
to balance all the complicated and contradictory advice can be
difficult. Although I love my program and advisors, I've known many
less happy students. Toward that end, there are two pieces of
meta-advice that I wish everybody was told before they applied:

Find recent graduates of the program you are considering, and the
faculty advisor(s) you are planning on working with, and look at where
they are now. Are these ex-students doing the kind of work that you
want to do? Are they at great programs at great universities?

Chances are good that a PhD program and its faculty will prepare
future students to be like, and do work like, the students they
have trained in the past. Programs that consistently make good
placements are preparing their students well, supporting them,
making sure they have the resources necessary to do good work, and
helping their students when they are on the job market. A program
whose students do poorly, or just end doing work that isn't like
the kind you want to do, will probably fail you too.

If recent graduates seem to be generally successful and doing the
kind of work you want to do, find one who looks most like the kind
of academic you want to become and talk to them about their
experience. Chances are, your faculty advisors will overlap with
theirs and your experience will be similar. Ex-students can tell
you the strengths of weaknesses of the program you are considering
and what to watch out for. If they had a horrible experience,
there's a decent chance you will too, and they will tell you so.

Doing these two things means you don't have to worry about trying to
think of all the axes on which you want to evaluate a program or pour
through admissions material which is only tangentially connected to
the reality you'll live for a long time. What matters most is the
outcomes, of course, because you're be living the rest of your life
for a lot longer than you'll be in the PhD program.

Public Resource republishes many court documents. Although these
documents are all part of the public record and PR will not take them
down because someone finds their publication uncomfortable, PR will
evaluate and honor some requests to remove documents from search
engine results. Public Resources does so using a robots.txt file
or "robot exclusion protocol" which websites use to, among other
things, tell search engine's web crawling "robots" which pages they do
not want to be indexed and included in search results. Originally,
the files were mostly used to keep robots from abusing server
resources by walking through infinite lists of automatically generated
pages or to block search engines from including user-contributed
content that might include spam.

The result for Public Resource, however, is that PR is now publishing,
in the form of its robots.txt, a list of all of the cases that
people have successfully requested to be made less visible!

In Public Resource's case, this is is the result of a careful
decision; PR makes the arrangement clear in on their website. The
robots.txt home page also explains the situation saying, "the
/robots.txt file is a publicly available file. Anyone can see what
sections of your server you don't want robots to use,", and "don't try
to use /robots.txt to hide information."

That said, I've looked at a bunch of robots.txt files on websites I
have visited recently and, sadly, I've found many sites that use
robots.txt as a form of weak security. This is very dangerous.

Some poorly designed robots simply ignore the robots.txt file. But one
can also imagine an evil search engine that uses a web-crawler that
does the opposite of what it's told and only indexes these "hidden"
pages. This evil crawler might look for particular keywords or use
existing search engine data to check for incoming links in order to
construct a list of pages whose existence is only made public through
a file meant to keep people away.

Check your own robots.txt and ask yourself what it might reveal. By
advertising the existence and locations of your secrets, the act of
"hiding" might make your data even less private.

Last year, my team Codex won the hunt. The reward (punishment?)
for winning is the responsibility to write the 100+ puzzles, (and
meta-puzzles, and meta-meta-puzzles, and theme, and events) and to
put on the whole event the following year.

So over the last year, I've worked with a huge group of folks to put
together this year's hunt which had a theme loosely based on The
Producers. My own role was small compared to many of my teammates:
I contributed to some puzzle writing and to a bunch of "test-solving"
of candidate puzzles to make sure they were solvable, not too easy,
fun, and well constructed. During the hunt, I visited competing teams,
verified answer submissions, and took advantage of my jet-lag from my
return from Japan on the day of the hunt to work the night shift
distributing items to teams.

Back in 2007, Harpers Magazine published The Ecstasy of
Influence: a beautiful article by Jonathan Lethem on reuse in art
and literature. Like Lewis Hyde in The Gift (quite like
Hyde, as readers discover) Lethem blurs the line between plagiarism,
remix, and influence and points to his subject at the center of
artistic production. Lethem's gimmick, which most readers only
discover at the end, is that the article is constructed entirely out
of "reused" (i.e., plagiarized) quotations and paraphrases.

A couple months ago, I suggested to my friend Andrés
Monroy-Hernández a very similar project: a literature review on
academic work on remixing and remixing communities constructed
entirely of text lifted from existing research.

After some searching around, Andrés pointed out that Lethem had
essentially beaten us to the punch and linked me to his article. Only
after I visited the link did I remember that I had read Lethem's
article when it was published and loved the idea then. Over time, I'd
forgotten I read ever it.

Without knowing it, I had read, loved, forgotten, and then --
influenced, if unconsciously -- copied and reproduced the idea myself
in slightly modified form.

It seems that nearly all computer monitors have now switched from a
4:3 aspect ratio popular several years ago to a "wide screen"
16:10 and now mostly to an even wider 16:9.

But screen sizes are usually measured by their diagonal length and
those sizes have not changed. For example, before I had my Thinkpad
X201, I had a X60 and a X35. They are similar laptops in the same
product line with 12.1" screens. But 12.1" describes the size along
the diagonal and the aspect ratio switched from 4:3 to 16:10 between
the X60 and the X201. As the screen stretched out but maintained the
same diagonal length, the area shrunk: from 453 square centimeters
to 425.

But screens are not only getting smaller, they are also getting less
useful. The switch to wider aspect ratios is done so that people can
watch wide screen movies while using a larger proportion of their
screens. Of course, the vast majority of people's time on their
laptops is not spent watching wide screen movies but in programs like
browsers, word processors, and editors. Because most of our writing
systems lay out documents from top to bottom, the tools we most
frequently use to display (and then scroll through) the things we read
primarily use vertical screen space -- the dimension that is
shrinking.

If you have a desktop monitor, you might rotate the whole thing 90
degrees and "solve" the problem. If you're on a laptop though (as I
usually am) this is clearly not an option.

I am not the first person to be annoyed by this trend. In fact, many
recent desktop UI changes are designed to work around this issue. In
the free software world, both Unity and GNOME 3 have made
efforts to hide, merge, or otherwise get ride of title bars, menu
bars, and panels that take up dwindling vertical space. I use
Awesome which I've mostly set up to do two side-by-side terminals
with very little in the way of menu bars.

Applications are the worst offenders and the solutions for those
things that won't run in a terminal (or people that don't want to live
there) are still lacking. I have been using Firefox's Tree Style Tab
extension to move tabs to the side and hand-customized toolbars
that squeeze everything I need (i.e., back, forward, stop, refresh,
and URL bar) onto a single menu bar.

But the situation still drives me crazy. I'd love to hear what others
are doing.

Mika and I will be traveling this winter in the Seattle area and in
Japan. The current plan is to be in Seattle December 19 through 28 and
then in Japan from December 28 through January 12. After that, we
will fly back to Boston for the MIT Mystery Hunt where, as
punishment for winning last year, our team is running this year's
hunt.

We will be in Tokyo for New Years and then traveling around Japan for
much of the rest of the time. We hope to visit Hokkaido and Aomori and
to travel there from Tokyo along Japan's Western coast through
Kanazawa and Niigata.

We're still figuring out where we will visit and what we will do in
both places. If you are interested in meeting up for dinner or drinks
in either place (or in organizing a talk or meeting), please get in
touch and let's try to figure something out.